Moberg et al. [2005]

I’ve heard rumors that a new reconstruction from Moberg et al. is about to be published in Nature and it looks like it’s going to be more bad news for Mann et al. Here is a clip from a PDF posted up by Moberg in October 2004, but obviously not incorporated into the spaghetti diagrams of Mann, Briffa etc. It sure looks like a MWP and LIA to me.

The reason that this is not incorporated into the spaghetti diagrams is that these are data from the ECHO-G climate model. By spooky coincidence, they look rather like the dat from Crowley and of Moberg…

Tom, you’re right that this is from Echo-G. One of Mann’s spaghetti diagrams (EOS 2003) had model outputs and didn’t put this model in. (I don’t know whether it was available then.

An Exho-G version is in the Moberg article as Figure 2c, but it’s different than the above version: the Moberg version has late 20th century going higher than the MWP maximum, while the October 2004 version has a higher MWP than late 20th century: I wonder what caused the difference.

The relationship between MWP and late 20th century is interesting in other multiproxy studies: if you look at my Crowley note, you’ll see that his 15-series version has a higher MWP than 20th, but his 13-series version does not. So he nearly always uses his 13-series version: what would you bet that, if the relationships were reversed, he would have used the 15-series version. We know the answer. Steve

I really don’t understand what makes this Nature-worthy other then a general fascination with climate change and an overdramatization of a small and nascent field, by that organ. This reconstruction for all the blathering about wavelets and combining centenial proxies only has 11 proxies. It’s like another Crowley or Hegerly pick a basket of daisies and publish a paper in Nature. MBH for all its faults, at least had some promise with it’s large data set size to have been a superior study. But why, Moberg?